Google wins a game of “Escape from East Texas,” linking Rockstar to Apple

A federal judge issued an order today decreeing that Google's court battle against a "patent troll" owned by its competitors must be fought out in California, not in Texas.

The ruling is a substantial victory for Google because venue matters in patent litigation. The search giant was facing the possibility of fighting a powerful trolling entity in the Eastern District of Texas, long considered a district friendly to patent holders. The patent owner in this case is the Rockstar Consortium, formed when Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Ericsson, and Blackberry teamed up to spend $4.5 billion to buy patents belonging to Nortel, a bankrupt Canadian telecom company.

US District Judge Claudia Wilken largely agreed with Google's points, using sharp language that suggests Rockstar won't have an easy time litigating this case. The first thing she did was dispense with the idea that Rockstar's co-plaintiff, Texas-based "MobileStar," should be treated as something separate and distinct from Rockstar.

"[T]he circumstances here strongly suggest that Rockstar formed MobileStar as a sham entity for the sole purpose of avoiding jurisdiction in all other fora except MobileStar’s state of incorporation (Delaware) and claimed principal place of business (Texas)," wrote Wilken. "A mere day before it initiated litigation against Google’s customers, Rockstar freshly minted MobileStar, with no California contacts, and assigned the asserted patents to that subsidiary."

Wilken goes on to note that Apple, a Silicon Valley stalwart, is the majority shareholder of Rockstar. Apple paid $2.6 billion of the $4.5 billion purchase price of the patents, and "at least 1,147" of the approximately 2,000 patents purchased went to Apple. She continues:

Rockstar’s CEO Veschi stated that he does not talk to its shareholders about potential licensing partners or infringement suits, but admitted that he has to show them “progress and that real work is being done.” ... Veschi holds periodic calls and meetings with the owners, primarily with their intellectual property departments, and Veschi acknowledges that they “work well together.”

Wilken sees a "direct link" between Apple's business interest and Rockstar's litigation moves:

Google and Apple’s rivalry in the smartphone industry is well-documented. Apple’s founder stated that he viewed Android as a “rip off” of iPhone features and intended to “destroy” Android by launching a “thermonuclear war." Defendants' litigation strategy of suing Google customers is consistent with Apple's particular business interest... This 'scare the customer and run' tactic advances Apple’s interest in interfering with Google’s Android business.

Rockstar's senior management is based in Ontario, Canada, where Nortel was headquartered. It also has a small office in Plano, Texas, which is within the Eastern District of Texas.

Contacted by Ars, Google declined to comment on the ruling. According to Reuters, which first reported the story, Apple also declined to comment, while a spokesperson for Rockstar could not immediately be reached.

When an attack that sounds like an astro-turf post comes from a newly minted login with not a single post before said attack, it is the default (and likely true) assumption that said poster *is* an astroturfer.

If you want to be taken serious as something other, you need to build up some cred.

No, you're down voted because you're conflating two separate issues. The theft claims by Apple execs generally don't have much to do with these patents that were purchased after the fact. It may be the vehicle by which they're doing battle, but you can't claim theft based on the fact that they own patents that were recently purchased for the specific purpose of litigation.

I hope Google is allowed to point out, with extreme prejudice, and multiple times, the attempted Rockstar / MobileStar "shell" game as an example of the integrity ( or lack thereof ) of the Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Ericsson, Blackberry gang.

Just because Google was winning to buy said patents, does not in and of it self make those patents valid.

Even if Google thought the patents are not valid, paying a billion for them to avoid having to go to court multiple times, go through appeals and PR issues and finally being found right may be a better deal over all.

Just because Google was winning to buy said patents, does not in and of it self make those patents valid.

Even if Google thought the patents are not valid, paying a billion for them to avoid having to go to court multiple times, go through appeals and PR issues and finally being found right may be a better deal over all.

Google offered as much as $4.4 billion for the Nortel patent portfolio. => Google thought the patents were worth a LOT.

Just because Google was winning to buy said patents, does not in and of it self make those patents valid.

Even if Google thought the patents are not valid, paying a billion for them to avoid having to go to court multiple times, go through appeals and PR issues and finally being found right may be a better deal over all.

Google offered as much as $4.4 billion for the Nortel patent portfolio. => Google thought the patents were worth a LOT.

Well, Google did take the trouble to point out that being, themselves, a member of the Rockstar consortium would be an even worse position.

Google's behavior is flippant, not just towards these patents but towards patent infringement.

Could you elaborate a bit more? I can't understand your position.

Is it that complicated? Google offers $4.4B and loses, then calls the patents worthless and (if we can believe Rockstar) continues to practice the art covered by said patents without a license.

Thank you for elaborating.

The patents could very well be worthless in Google's perspective, because of its vagueness in description (as most software patents are). Buying it and keeping it out of the reach of its rivals who would and have sued them (under the guise of a non-practising entity) was a logical thing to do. Would that really be considered flippant?

Is it that complicated? Google offers $4.4B and loses, then calls the patents worthless and (if we can believe Rockstar) continues to practice the art covered by said patents without a license.

The patents were worth at most one billion, by Google themselves. Google's last bid was 3.14 billion, with more numbers following pi.

Most of the patents are worthless, set to expire in a few years; the ones that are now being used for sue android, are vague, bs software patents.

The only valuable patents going forward were LTE ones. And those are FRAND.

All they've done is patent troll Cisco for cable modem and tv boxs and others for money for stuff, and the shitty part about that is, they force them to pay royalties on stuff they themselves spent money developing. It isn't as if they scoured Nortel's patents on how to make their stuff. So in effect, they became part of the people who drag the economy down with bs patent trolling.

As I've said many times before, the joke is on apple and ms for paying $4+ billion for something they'll never recoup.

The best part of this Rockstar Consortium nonsense is the fact that Google pushed them to bid higher & higher amounts. The bid of Pi was an obvious piss-take. By then they knew they weren't going to buy it.

Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit, I am just glad the judged seemed to have enough common sense to realize that the MobileStar subsidiary was a BS storefront trying to take advantage of the patent troll friendly district in Texas.

I hope Google is allowed to point out, with extreme prejudice, and multiple times, the attempted Rockstar / MobileStar "shell" game as an example of the integrity ( or lack thereof ) of the Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Ericsson, Blackberry gang.

These companies have "integrity"? *None* of them have integrity, including google. They're *for profit* corporations, so all they care about are profits. If the "impression" of integrity helps their bottom line, they'll be "moral", else they'll do whatever it takes to make an extra buck.

They're all just as dirty when it comes to using unreasonable litigation to eliminate their competition.Their shareholders expect them to use *ANY* "legal" means to gain a competitive advantage. (And illegal means as long as they don't get caught.) ;-)

Lawyers don't care if they're called hypocrites, they'll use any and all methods to gain an advantage to win the particular case they're assigned to.

This should be thrown out quick fast just for the simple fact that Rockstar produces nothing and the only electronics and innovation they are interested in is how to make the printers print their lawyers checks bigger and faster.

Funny thing was that Google supposedly was offered a chance to buy into Rockstar.

But Google backed out and decided to go it on their own when they realized that Rockstar being it's own entity could go right back and sue them (Google) with the same patents they spent their money on.

Hmm? Go on my own and try to buy up the patents for protection OR spend billions of my one money to join a group where they will probably make me a minor player and which included Microsoft and Apple who I know hates me and with their majority of Rockstar vote on using my own money against me? Um yeah, you said that pit of vipers was at the door to the left? PASS!!

This should be thrown out quick fast just for the simple fact that Rockstar produces nothing and the only electronics and innovation they are interested in is how to make the printers print their lawyers checks bigger and faster.

Funny thing was that Google supposedly was offered a chance to buy into Rockstar.

But Google backed out and decided to go it on their own when they realized that Rockstar being it's own entity could go right back and sue them (Google) with the same patents they spent their money on.

Hmm? Go on my own and try to buy up the patents for protection OR spend billions of my one money to join a group where they will probably make me a minor player and which included Microsoft and Apple who I know hates me and with their majority of Rockstar vote on using my own money against me? Um yeah, you said that pit of vipers was at the door to the left? PASS!!

That's something I'm trying to wrap my head around though: Sony is one of the founders of Rockstar, and IIRC, they aren't being sued by the consortium. If Google joined the consortium, would it really have been possible for the consortium to sue one of their owners?

I'm sure Google knows something that we don't that made them reject Rockstar, but one wonders about that.